Conventionally, profit-seeking and bigotry are contradictions in terms. A company that constrains who can be an employee interferes with the ability to get the best employee and thus interferes with profits. A company which limits its customer base affects its bottom line. The same logic can be applied to personal relationships: if you refuse to make friends with people of different ethnicity, genders, religions, sexual orientations, etc, then you limit the pool of potential friends. Since people are so diverse in their interests, bigotry can make you very lonely. Incentives discourage bigotry.
If it was that simple, the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act would be inconsequential and we could safely say anti-discrimination laws have no place in a libertarian government. Economic incentives (which we know are very powerful) would discourage bigotry so much, such laws would serve no purpose. But it is not so simple.
The person who hires is not always the same as the person who profits from that hiring. In fact, it is very common that the manager is not the owner of the store she manages. While a manager's salary and job security are tied to the division he manages, it's an indirect tie. The likelihood he'll get full credit for good performance diminishes the farther the manager is removed from the owner(s). Knowing this, a manager (particularly a low-level manager) faces a very low cost to be a bigot. She gives up little (a small, small chance to get credit for good sales) compared to the owner so she indulges in bigotry more than the owner would. The demand curve slopes down.
This is a real concern for owners who naturally want the very best performers, but it is virtually impossible to get around. Refusing to hire the best person due to bigotry is hard to detect; there is no obvious error the owner can point to (unlike hiring a stupid or lazy person, where there is a record of complaints and poor performance).
What makes matters worse is that sometimes the best performers (or customers) are bigots themselves. Even if a manager isn't a bigot, he may be encouraged to avoid certain traits others unjustly find offensive. This concern, real or imagined, might be more prominent than we may be willing to admit: the desire to be around people who look like you is a strong one, one probably hard-wired into our DNA.
This instinct increases the benefits of bigotry. In the FX series Justified, the main character is a deputy U.S. Marshal in eastern Kentucky. While not a racist himself, he's found it advantageous to his job to feign some racist attitudes. More people are willing to talk to him if they feel like he's "one of them." It's an extreme example, but it highlights an important point. We not only like to be around people who look like us, we like being around people who think like us. The more people who have foolish views of those who are not like them, the greater incentive to engage in those views (or least, not challenge your primitive instincts). Bigotry becomes self-sustaining.
This is what makes the ruling on the VRA so disturbing. Even though the South had issues with racism "a long ago" (half a century ago), that certainly doesn't mean many of those attitudes are gone. As the recent decision by students to resegregate a South African school demonstrates, old habits die hard.
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Too Many Stars
Imagine there are two types of jobs in the world: stars and support. Stars are the jobs where you're the center of attention. They are the decision-makers, the bosses (or at least appear to be): CEOs, professional athletes, entrepreneurs, newscasters. Support are all those jobs that make the stars' job possible: administrative assistants, janitors, supply chain management. Support is logistics.
We tend to romanticize stars. People often dream of being the Most Important Person in the Room, the one who orders others around and makes the Big Decisions. College encourages students to be leaders: "training future leaders" is common theme in mission statements. While grading senior projects (which are typically a detailed business proposal), students seem to prefer starting a high-end specialty store rather than something more humdrum, even if the humdrum one makes more sense.
And so good support is hard to find: advertising over supply chain management, boutiques over discounts, cooks over waiters, researchers over teachers, Apple over Wal-Mart, etc. It even happens in online video games (where the main goal is killing stuff): damage dealers are a dime a dozen but players interested in keeping their allies alive are a bitch to find.
We have too many people dreaming of becoming stars and it's incredibly wasteful. Think of all of the people who would be great at "mediocre" roles but instead are instead wasting their time trying to be actors or entrepreneurs. Being a star has more prestige and for good reason--don't get me wrong, stars are important--but we place too much emphasis on stars. We rarely think of training and encouraging good support and that should change. It's not the generals who win wars; it's the logistics.
We tend to romanticize stars. People often dream of being the Most Important Person in the Room, the one who orders others around and makes the Big Decisions. College encourages students to be leaders: "training future leaders" is common theme in mission statements. While grading senior projects (which are typically a detailed business proposal), students seem to prefer starting a high-end specialty store rather than something more humdrum, even if the humdrum one makes more sense.
And so good support is hard to find: advertising over supply chain management, boutiques over discounts, cooks over waiters, researchers over teachers, Apple over Wal-Mart, etc. It even happens in online video games (where the main goal is killing stuff): damage dealers are a dime a dozen but players interested in keeping their allies alive are a bitch to find.
We have too many people dreaming of becoming stars and it's incredibly wasteful. Think of all of the people who would be great at "mediocre" roles but instead are instead wasting their time trying to be actors or entrepreneurs. Being a star has more prestige and for good reason--don't get me wrong, stars are important--but we place too much emphasis on stars. We rarely think of training and encouraging good support and that should change. It's not the generals who win wars; it's the logistics.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
How Common Are Functional Families?
Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
Before I begin, let me emphasize I'm talking in very large generalizations. This is for clarity purposes; please don't mistake my simplifications for being rude.
I was born and raised in a "functional family." I always got enough to eat, I got help with school work, and my parents showed love and affection. They never hit my brother or myself and their fights were rare and civil. I had an excellent upbringing (thanks, by the way, Mom and Dad). For my brother's and I's part, we were good kids. We weren't angels by any means, but we stayed out of major trouble, did well in school, etc.
So when I wonder if most families are functional--perhaps little a better, perhaps a little worse than mine--I naturally think back to my childhood and conclude my childhood was typical. This is, of course, a poor way to draw a general conclusion. You can tell because when I would ask my friends who come from dysfunctional families, they would make the opposite conclusions: "we're not unusual, David, you are." They are, in all likelihood, making the same mistake I am.
So I might say "But we had many family friends who are also functional families." Of course, functional families like to hang out with other functional families so that's not very good. It leads to dysfunctional families drawing one of two conclusions:
(a) They were somewhat dysfunctional, which means they would be friends with other somewhat dysfunctional families (functional families won't have them and the somewhat dysfunctional won't hang out with the really dysfunctional one). Thus they cite the other families they know and use that as more evidence of how common people like them are.
(b) They were really dysfunctional, which means, based on this rough model, that they will have few to none family friends. So they would probably say "look, my family was really bad; it seems reasonable that something somewhat better than what I experienced would be the norm."
(This says nothing about the families that are functional to a level that's annoying. As this episode of South Park suggests, such families would have trouble finding outside friends as well.)
So how common are functional families? I have no idea and unless someone did a random sample and came up with a good measure of functionality (good luck), then I'd say no one really knows. But what learning about others' families have taught me is that while the average is hard to figure, the standard deviation is huge.
Before I begin, let me emphasize I'm talking in very large generalizations. This is for clarity purposes; please don't mistake my simplifications for being rude.
I was born and raised in a "functional family." I always got enough to eat, I got help with school work, and my parents showed love and affection. They never hit my brother or myself and their fights were rare and civil. I had an excellent upbringing (thanks, by the way, Mom and Dad). For my brother's and I's part, we were good kids. We weren't angels by any means, but we stayed out of major trouble, did well in school, etc.
So when I wonder if most families are functional--perhaps little a better, perhaps a little worse than mine--I naturally think back to my childhood and conclude my childhood was typical. This is, of course, a poor way to draw a general conclusion. You can tell because when I would ask my friends who come from dysfunctional families, they would make the opposite conclusions: "we're not unusual, David, you are." They are, in all likelihood, making the same mistake I am.
So I might say "But we had many family friends who are also functional families." Of course, functional families like to hang out with other functional families so that's not very good. It leads to dysfunctional families drawing one of two conclusions:
(a) They were somewhat dysfunctional, which means they would be friends with other somewhat dysfunctional families (functional families won't have them and the somewhat dysfunctional won't hang out with the really dysfunctional one). Thus they cite the other families they know and use that as more evidence of how common people like them are.
(b) They were really dysfunctional, which means, based on this rough model, that they will have few to none family friends. So they would probably say "look, my family was really bad; it seems reasonable that something somewhat better than what I experienced would be the norm."
(This says nothing about the families that are functional to a level that's annoying. As this episode of South Park suggests, such families would have trouble finding outside friends as well.)
So how common are functional families? I have no idea and unless someone did a random sample and came up with a good measure of functionality (good luck), then I'd say no one really knows. But what learning about others' families have taught me is that while the average is hard to figure, the standard deviation is huge.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Why Am I Thanking My Students?
When you buy something you might encounter an awkward exchange: you say "thank you" to the cashier and the cashier says "thank you" back. While strange at first, its evidence that trade is mutually beneficial. I got something I want (say, carrots), and the store got something it wanted (money). So we thank each other.\
A student just dropped off her homework assignment. I thanked her and she thanked me back. Does this mean that homework is mutually beneficial as well? That seems strange. Homework for me is more stuff to grade. How do I benefit? How does she benefit?
Why am I thanking her?
1. Perhaps it's a habitual reaction for when anyone hands me anything. But I doubt that if someone handed me a meaningless set of forms to fill out, I'd thank them.
2. I have a professional obligation to grade this homework. By turning it in, she is enabling me to fulfill my obligations. But that obligation only occurs if she turns it in.
3. By turning it on time, she is making my life easier. But I would probably thank people if they turned it in late.
Why is she thanking me?
1. She is appreciative in advance that I will grade it, but I have a professional obligation to grade it. Still, maybe she is appreciative that I am being professional.
2. She is appreciative that I have accepted it to grade, but it was on time so of course I will accept it.
3. She is thankful that she now longer has to work on it, perhaps thanking me that it wasn't longer/harder than it was. This might be true--I get less thank yous for harder assignments--but it doesn't pass the smell test.
A fourth possibility exists for each: mutual thank yous is an acknowledge of a passing of responsibility. She is pointing out she is turning in her assignment and that she has finished it to her satisfaction. I am acknowledging that I am accepting her assignment and it is my responsibility now to grade it.
If this fourth possibility is true, then it calls into question why we have mutual thank yous at stores. Perhaps it is a social convention left over from before receipts: the owner is acknowledging I can leave the store with the item and I am acknowledging that he can take my money. David Graeber points out that the first form of money was debt (as in a series of favors). "Thank you" is an acknowledgement that a favor is now owed.
I find (1) from each side to be most probable but (4) to be most interesting.
A student just dropped off her homework assignment. I thanked her and she thanked me back. Does this mean that homework is mutually beneficial as well? That seems strange. Homework for me is more stuff to grade. How do I benefit? How does she benefit?
Why am I thanking her?
1. Perhaps it's a habitual reaction for when anyone hands me anything. But I doubt that if someone handed me a meaningless set of forms to fill out, I'd thank them.
2. I have a professional obligation to grade this homework. By turning it in, she is enabling me to fulfill my obligations. But that obligation only occurs if she turns it in.
3. By turning it on time, she is making my life easier. But I would probably thank people if they turned it in late.
Why is she thanking me?
1. She is appreciative in advance that I will grade it, but I have a professional obligation to grade it. Still, maybe she is appreciative that I am being professional.
2. She is appreciative that I have accepted it to grade, but it was on time so of course I will accept it.
3. She is thankful that she now longer has to work on it, perhaps thanking me that it wasn't longer/harder than it was. This might be true--I get less thank yous for harder assignments--but it doesn't pass the smell test.
A fourth possibility exists for each: mutual thank yous is an acknowledge of a passing of responsibility. She is pointing out she is turning in her assignment and that she has finished it to her satisfaction. I am acknowledging that I am accepting her assignment and it is my responsibility now to grade it.
If this fourth possibility is true, then it calls into question why we have mutual thank yous at stores. Perhaps it is a social convention left over from before receipts: the owner is acknowledging I can leave the store with the item and I am acknowledging that he can take my money. David Graeber points out that the first form of money was debt (as in a series of favors). "Thank you" is an acknowledgement that a favor is now owed.
I find (1) from each side to be most probable but (4) to be most interesting.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
The Listeners of What Is This Person Referring to?
Since then, I've grown to hate these listeners. Oh, I hate them, hate them, hate them. Every time one of their narrow-minded, classist letters makes it on the air, I contemplate burning my tote bag in protest.
Answer here.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Top Ten Reasons Sex Sells
Actually, I find top ten lists annoying. Well, that's not really true. Only some are annoying and they're the ones that aren't really top ten lists because each item is really previous items restated. Inspired by this list about how Sport Illustrated disrespects women. (While published over two years ago, it came up in my blog rolls recently.) Observe:
So why did Feminist Truths publish this as a "top ten" list? Just because you have "just" two points doesn't mean they are not worthy points. Even having two things to be concerned with can be too many (most great reporting focuses on one issue). It's because top ten lists get attention. They might depict the subject in a superficial or over-simplified way, lacking nuance and practicality, but that's largely harmless because it's up to the viewer to look deeper or, at the least, recognize it as harmless fun. But in the end, Feminist Truths are giving people what they want.
They're really no different than Sports Illustrated.
4. Sports Illustrated disrespects women by numbing men to women's humanity.It's not possible to do #3 without doing #4 nor can do you accomplish #2 without #4. Read their whole list. Their "top ten reasons" (there are more?) are really two reasons: "SI disrespects women by publishing too many photos of them as sex objects" and "SI disrespects women by publishing too few photos of them as athletes."
3. Sports Illustrated disrespects women by exhibiting women to men as the "other"--as if women were a different species from the "real" athletes who are men.
2. Sports Illustrated disrespects women by sending a message to girls and young women that no matter how much they excel in athletics, all that matters is how they look to men.
So why did Feminist Truths publish this as a "top ten" list? Just because you have "just" two points doesn't mean they are not worthy points. Even having two things to be concerned with can be too many (most great reporting focuses on one issue). It's because top ten lists get attention. They might depict the subject in a superficial or over-simplified way, lacking nuance and practicality, but that's largely harmless because it's up to the viewer to look deeper or, at the least, recognize it as harmless fun. But in the end, Feminist Truths are giving people what they want.
They're really no different than Sports Illustrated.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
The Spirit of the Season
Rasmussen Reports published today that most people prefer stores greet them with "Merry Christmas" (69%) versus the 24% preferring Happy Holidays.
But:Holiday Christmas cheer.
Merry Christmas.
But:
Very few Americans are offended when someone wishes them a "Merry Christmas," but most are more likely to say "Happy Holidays" to someone else rather than risk offending them.And:
Also, few who don’t celebrate the holiday are offended when an acquaintance wished them "Merry Christmas."Wishing someone a "Merry Christmas" is an externalized benefit (people prefer it more) at a small risk of an internalized cost (offending someone...which is also an externalized cost but I figure if you're going to bother to say anything in the first place, you have sympathetic preferences). According to these reports, as economics predicts, we have too few "Merry Christmases" because (drum roll please), people are taking their niceness too far! It's a strange world when a selfish Scrooge can teach us about spreading some
Merry Christmas.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Which Public Figure Is This Describing?
He is acutely conscious of his personal safety. He feels targeted. Security guards trail him on the street. He wears bulletproof vests at public events.Answer here, quote from page three of the article. Interesting throughout.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Quote of the Month
For the month not just because of the words, but because of the unexpected source.
The American experiment was based on mutual respect, acceptance of differing religious beliefs and common decency. Burning anyone's sacred scripture is an affront to all of these.HT: Megan McArdle
The world needs more voices not fewer. More faith not less. It is not God that tells man to hate, kill or stifle thought. It is a fringe understanding of religion. God beckons us to seek His face. I refuse to believe that a loving Father would punish honest and bold questions. But I do believe there must surely be eternal consequences for those who hate or kill in his name.
Let us not fail to recognize that this week we witnessed Christian extremists behaving in ways made infamous by a monster fascist. The reactions by Muslim radicals only mirrored the minds of those in Iran who currently stone people to death for what they call the "sin of homosexuality."
The world has once again come to a point where it cowers at best and, at worst, appeases crazy and dangerous men of all philosophies of God and man. We must again link arms and unite despite our differences against evils that only wish to destroy or enslave no matter the god they hide behind. "The truth shall set you free" is more than a phrase -- it is a universal principle that cannot be changed by a bonfire or suicide vest.
History teaches us what happens to those who not only burn books, but also to those who do not respect freedom of speech -- especially when most find it vile and offensive
Friday, July 23, 2010
States of Unhappiness
Here's a video showing continental US states' mood through the day as inferred by Twitter (their size adjusted for population, measured by tweets). (The video shows the same 24 hour cycle twice.)
If you're like me, you immediate zeroed in on your state and followed it throughout the days. And if you're really like me, you'd follow Iowa and you'll notice Iowa's always sad. Really sad. So I ran it a couple of more times to find out which other states share Iowa's angst. Here's a list (some might be wrong because the states' altered size make some hard to identify).
Iowa
North Dakota
South Dakota
Montana
New Mexico
Nebraska
Kansas
West Virgina
Mississippi
My first impression is that these are all low population states; Iowa's the highest at number 30. The basic rational is that people like to live near other people. It creates better job opportunities, more interesting things to do, a larger pool of potential friends, etc. And while there's several states which are unhappy nearly all the time many other states aren't (like Maine, which is #41 in population). But a much better of the "people like clumps" theory is population density (unhappy states italicized).
And many of these states were close to being unhappy all the time but had some moments of tepid joy (i.e. Arkansas and Idaho). Others have a skewed density: Nevada has a handful of major cities and the rest is unpopulated desert. Other factors come into this of course such as climate and state size (smaller states are easier to leave) but I have no doubt the draw of the city plays a major role.
If you're like me, you immediate zeroed in on your state and followed it throughout the days. And if you're really like me, you'd follow Iowa and you'll notice Iowa's always sad. Really sad. So I ran it a couple of more times to find out which other states share Iowa's angst. Here's a list (some might be wrong because the states' altered size make some hard to identify).
Iowa
North Dakota
South Dakota
Montana
New Mexico
Nebraska
Kansas
West Virgina
Mississippi
My first impression is that these are all low population states; Iowa's the highest at number 30. The basic rational is that people like to live near other people. It creates better job opportunities, more interesting things to do, a larger pool of potential friends, etc. And while there's several states which are unhappy nearly all the time many other states aren't (like Maine, which is #41 in population). But a much better of the "people like clumps" theory is population density (unhappy states italicized).
| State | Density Rank |
| West Virginia | 29 |
| Vermont | 30 |
| Minnesota | 31 |
| Mississippi | 32 |
| Arizona | 33 |
| Arkansas | 34 |
| Iowa | 35 |
| Oklahoma | 36 |
| Colorado | 37 |
| Maine | 38 |
| Oregon | 39 |
| Kansas | 40 |
| Utah | 41 |
| Nevada | 42 |
| Nebraska | 43 |
| Idaho | 44 |
| New Mexico | 45 |
| South Dakota | 46 |
| North Dakota | 47 |
| Montana | 48 |
| Wyoming | 49 |
HT: Brian Hollar
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Good Sentence
From Thomas Friedman today:
In the age of Google, when everything you say is forever searchable, the future belongs to those who leave no footprints.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
[Insert Witticism Here]
Gene Weingarten at the Washington Post mourns the death of clever headlines.
I got a headline for you: Journalist Once Again Screws Up Basic Economics. Oh wait, that's not news.
The only really creative opportunity copy editors had was writing headlines, and they took it seriously. This gave the American press some brilliant and memorable moments...[but now] on the Web, headlines aren't designed to catch readers' eyes. They are designed for "search engine optimization," meaning that readers who are looking for information about something will find the story, giving the newspaper a coveted "eyeball."Here's a great time to do a little cost-benefit analysis. The cost of more online news sources is that consumers lose cute phrases as news outlets compete for attention. Meanwhile copy editors don't get to use their degree in English literature to write a few dozen of those phrases everyday. The benefit is that millions of people have an infinitely easier time find the information they want from sources all over the world. And if they still want a clever phrase with a picture, they can search for that, too. Do we even have to run the numbers?
I got a headline for you: Journalist Once Again Screws Up Basic Economics. Oh wait, that's not news.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Mbaiki Witch Trials
His principal advice to clients, he said, was to act normally and refrain from casting any spells in the courtroom.That's from this article about witch trials in the Central African Republic.
By some estimates, about 40 percent of the cases in the Central African court system are witchcraft prosecutions. (Drug offenses in the U.S., by contrast, account for just 12 percent of arrests.) In Mbaiki—where Pygmies, who are known for bewitching each other, make up about a tenth of the population—witchcraft prosecutions exceed 50 percent of the case load, meaning that most alleged criminals there are suspected of doing things that Westerners generally regard as impossible.But how does the court determine if someone's a witch? Surely it can't be as sloppy as just arbitrarily declaring yes or no just by looking at them.
I asked how one determined guilt in cases where the alleged witches denied the charges. “The judge will look at them and see if they act like witches,"Wow. Well surely this witchcraft law is actively trying to be repealed by local groups and international NGOs alike. I can't imagine any reason to keep this law on the books.
[an Italian group called COOPI that exists to promote human rights and the rule of law] supported keeping the laws on the books, for pragmatic reasons: if people thought witches could hex with impunity, mobs would simply seize the alleged offenders, bring them to a pit, and bury them alive.Drat.
HT: Alex Tabarrok
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Tattletales and Signaling Theory
You learn lots of important things in kindergarten. Don't lie. Don't cut in line. Always say "please" and "thank you." Share your toys. Don't tattle. These are all good lessons, but the last one doesn't really make sense. Tattletales inform proper authorities of people who broke the rules. If the rules are just, exposing violators of those rules should also be just. If it's not good to point out that little Suzy cut in line, how can one say it's bad to cut in line? And yet, if you're hosting a party and a guest came to you to rat out another guest because she jumped in front of everyone at the buffet table, you'll probably have a lower opinion of the informant, not the accused.
It gets even more confusing because it's not a hard fast rule. "Tattling" on a murderer or a thief is generally considered an act of bravery. Same thing goes with exposing corrupt politicians or companies doing unethical accounting or illegal polluting. We call them whistle blowers and put them on the cover of Time Magazine. Context matters a lot: during the 2009 snow storm I, like so many others, were stranded at the Dulles Airport. A woman cut in line for rebooking (a line I was waiting in for two hours). It took us a while to figure out she was cutting and not asking a humdrum question and while no one protested, we wish we had. (Why we didn't is another story entirely.)
My best guess to explain this asymmetry is signaling theory. Signaling is economics speak for "actions speak louder than words." It's about using demonstrative actions to show people you have some quality. Saying you're a trustworthy person doesn't mean much. But if you fess up to something you did wrong, you can signal you're a trustworthy person and people are more likely to believe you. Tattletales interfere with that signaling system.
Suppose I cut in line at a buffet to get the last Swedish meatball. If I sneak away to devour my ill-gotten gains in peace, those who witnessed it will look down on me for my selfishness and rudeness. But suppose I admit to everyone that I cut in line and apologize. I've put myself out there, subjecting myself to the will of the mob. By admitting dishonesty, everyone would look down on me. Someone might lay claim to my meatball. But it's also possible that everyone would laugh it off and they'll go away thinking "that David fellow is an honest guy; he didn't have to admit to such a minor offense but he did and that says a lot."
Now I'm not saying that a good way to gain people's trust is to swipe something and then fess up. The whole point is you're putting yourself at risk to be worse off than if you said nothing and it certainly doesn't work if you follow up every heart-felt apology with another act of rudeness. But it shows that there's value in not exposing a violator because doing so denies them the opportunity to signal honesty. If a third party tells everyone I cut in line, then me stepping up to admit it doesn't mean anything. Thus, we discourage tattletales because they mess up our signaling system.
This signaling system doesn't always work. When the expected costs of signaling are unconditionally greater than the expected benefits, we don't expect anyone to signal so we tolerate, no, celebrate, tattlers. From murderers to emergency situation line jumpers, whistle blowers end up just getting rid of the creeps.
It gets even more confusing because it's not a hard fast rule. "Tattling" on a murderer or a thief is generally considered an act of bravery. Same thing goes with exposing corrupt politicians or companies doing unethical accounting or illegal polluting. We call them whistle blowers and put them on the cover of Time Magazine. Context matters a lot: during the 2009 snow storm I, like so many others, were stranded at the Dulles Airport. A woman cut in line for rebooking (a line I was waiting in for two hours). It took us a while to figure out she was cutting and not asking a humdrum question and while no one protested, we wish we had. (Why we didn't is another story entirely.)
My best guess to explain this asymmetry is signaling theory. Signaling is economics speak for "actions speak louder than words." It's about using demonstrative actions to show people you have some quality. Saying you're a trustworthy person doesn't mean much. But if you fess up to something you did wrong, you can signal you're a trustworthy person and people are more likely to believe you. Tattletales interfere with that signaling system.
Suppose I cut in line at a buffet to get the last Swedish meatball. If I sneak away to devour my ill-gotten gains in peace, those who witnessed it will look down on me for my selfishness and rudeness. But suppose I admit to everyone that I cut in line and apologize. I've put myself out there, subjecting myself to the will of the mob. By admitting dishonesty, everyone would look down on me. Someone might lay claim to my meatball. But it's also possible that everyone would laugh it off and they'll go away thinking "that David fellow is an honest guy; he didn't have to admit to such a minor offense but he did and that says a lot."
Now I'm not saying that a good way to gain people's trust is to swipe something and then fess up. The whole point is you're putting yourself at risk to be worse off than if you said nothing and it certainly doesn't work if you follow up every heart-felt apology with another act of rudeness. But it shows that there's value in not exposing a violator because doing so denies them the opportunity to signal honesty. If a third party tells everyone I cut in line, then me stepping up to admit it doesn't mean anything. Thus, we discourage tattletales because they mess up our signaling system.
This signaling system doesn't always work. When the expected costs of signaling are unconditionally greater than the expected benefits, we don't expect anyone to signal so we tolerate, no, celebrate, tattlers. From murderers to emergency situation line jumpers, whistle blowers end up just getting rid of the creeps.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Singles in DC
DC is apparently packed with single men and women, according to the Pew Research Center. With a national average of 52% (men) and 48% (women) married, the District sports a mere 28% (men) and 23% (women) married. The next lowest numbers are 47% (men) for Alaska and 43% (women) for Rhode Island. (These numbers are for the 15 and older crowd.)
One commentator believes this is due to the unique demographics of DC: very high black population (less likely to marry) and very high Democratic population (more likely to marry later). Another points to the 8.2% gay population as the culprit (along with the marry later point). These are certainly factors, but there's a much more obvious reason that I think carries the bulk of the explanation.
Married people tend to want to start families which generally means a bigger home and unless there's also a big raise, that means moving to the suburbs. In most states, moving to the suburbs can but not always means changing your state. But in DC, it always means leaving DC and heading to Maryland or Virgina (or West Virgina). So the states include both the city proper and the suburbs but DC includes only the city proper. Big difference.
One commentator believes this is due to the unique demographics of DC: very high black population (less likely to marry) and very high Democratic population (more likely to marry later). Another points to the 8.2% gay population as the culprit (along with the marry later point). These are certainly factors, but there's a much more obvious reason that I think carries the bulk of the explanation.
Married people tend to want to start families which generally means a bigger home and unless there's also a big raise, that means moving to the suburbs. In most states, moving to the suburbs can but not always means changing your state. But in DC, it always means leaving DC and heading to Maryland or Virgina (or West Virgina). So the states include both the city proper and the suburbs but DC includes only the city proper. Big difference.
Monday, June 29, 2009
iPods Are Not Cylons
While cleverly defending copyright law, identifying those against it as having a "bias to the collective," Mark Helprin on this week's EconTalk falls victim to his own collectivist leanings. He argues that many people succumb to "perverse adaptation." People adapt to technology instead of technology adapting to them. Helprin invokes images of commuters staring at their blackberries and consumers demanding things faster and faster as examples.
Human beings require time for reflection...We require stillness and the ability to absorb things rather than just being hooked up to a machine and made into bundles of tropisms. [Emphasis added]But those who don't are not dead. We do not require these things. We may require them to accomplish certain goals, goals Helprin places high value on, but we do not require them in the absolute sense. We choose to not do them. Technology does not leap in our lap and hook into us like a drone from the Matrix. Those people who Helprin paints as so grey are people who always wanted to move faster; technology simply allows them to do it. It's not that technology has enslaved us. Helprin simply believes that if people don't like the same things he does, there's something wrong with them. Such an attitude is the hallmark of the collective mindset.
Friday, April 10, 2009
On Reputation
Recently (in no small part to EconTalk's new book club starting with the Theory of Moral Sentiments) I've been given thought to if people should speak bad of others and if a person owns their reputation. The impulse seems to be that of course they do. It is their reputation, isn't it? Do they not have a right to know if someone speaks ill of them and to prevent harm to their reputation?
But calling it "my" or "her" or "their" reputation is really a semantic shorthand, much like "my" job or "my" girlfriend. We do not say it to convey possession, but rather relation. It is fundamentally not the same thing as my book, my computer, or my wallet.
The fact that a person's reputation can be harmed (and thus the person herself) should not be considered, either. A firm can (and is) harmed by their competition, but no one says McDonald's owns Burger King. Similarly, a critic who gives a negative review of a movie is thus not controlled by the movie's studio. Just because something can harm you, doesn't mean you own it.
Your reputation is the sum of what others think about you. To say you own your reputation is to say you own others' thoughts which is clearly nonsense. You don't own your reputation. Others do.
This is not a green light to spread lies. Lying is a violation of implicit contract between the listener and the talker--regardless of if a reputation is actually harmed (I'm told many things about many people I don't believe). But if reputation is harmed through expression of fact (including opinion presented as opinion), it's hard to claim the subject of conversation has a case of being wronged.
Smith advocated against harming another's reputation but has a valid function. People get bad reputations for reasons, most of which are justified. Spreading opinions can prevent disasters for others later (again, assuming there are no lies involved). Far from being malicious, speaking bad of someone actually helps people.
But calling it "my" or "her" or "their" reputation is really a semantic shorthand, much like "my" job or "my" girlfriend. We do not say it to convey possession, but rather relation. It is fundamentally not the same thing as my book, my computer, or my wallet.
The fact that a person's reputation can be harmed (and thus the person herself) should not be considered, either. A firm can (and is) harmed by their competition, but no one says McDonald's owns Burger King. Similarly, a critic who gives a negative review of a movie is thus not controlled by the movie's studio. Just because something can harm you, doesn't mean you own it.
Your reputation is the sum of what others think about you. To say you own your reputation is to say you own others' thoughts which is clearly nonsense. You don't own your reputation. Others do.
This is not a green light to spread lies. Lying is a violation of implicit contract between the listener and the talker--regardless of if a reputation is actually harmed (I'm told many things about many people I don't believe). But if reputation is harmed through expression of fact (including opinion presented as opinion), it's hard to claim the subject of conversation has a case of being wronged.
Smith advocated against harming another's reputation but has a valid function. People get bad reputations for reasons, most of which are justified. Spreading opinions can prevent disasters for others later (again, assuming there are no lies involved). Far from being malicious, speaking bad of someone actually helps people.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Decrees from the Bishop
Bill Bishop on The Daily Show tonight frets over people choosing to live with like-minded people or read like-minded sources. Bishop is missing the bigger picture: this "Big Sort" is the product of a wealthier people choosing to live the life they've always wanted to. Past generations didn't like their personal beliefs challenged by their neighbors; they just couldn't afford to move away because of something so small.
It would be nicer if people were interested in challenging values they dare not challenge. But being wrong is a cost they shoulder alone. Unless, of course, they vote: a problem that decreases as the scale of government retreats. Go ahead and be irrational. Just don't make me be irrational with you.
It would be nicer if people were interested in challenging values they dare not challenge. But being wrong is a cost they shoulder alone. Unless, of course, they vote: a problem that decreases as the scale of government retreats. Go ahead and be irrational. Just don't make me be irrational with you.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Pachelbel For the Modern Rocker
Art Carden wonders if this is art. I bet it is, but I ultimately don't care. It rocks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
